The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 MARK A. FREGIA, No. 1:20-cv-01024-KES-EPG
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR RELIEF UNDER THE ALL WRITS
13 v. ACT, AND DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUESTS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
14 LISA GOSSO, RELIEF, DOCUMENTATION, SANCTIONS,
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
15 Defendant.
Doc. 265, 282
16
17
18
19 Plaintiff Mark A. Fregia is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
20 civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is set for a jury trial on
21 August 11, 2026, on plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against defendant Gosso for deliberate
22 indifference to serious medical needs for allegedly denying plaintiff medication while he was
23 confined at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison (SATF) in Corcoran,
24 California.
25 On May 20, 2026, plaintiff filed a request for relief pursuant to the All Writs Act, alleging
26 that his “important trial documents have been sabotaged” at Mule Creek State Prison, where he is
27 currently confined. Doc. 265. Plaintiff alleged that his documents were tampered with during a
28 cell move on May 14, 2026. Id. He requested that the June 9, 2026 trial date be vacated pending
1 an investigation.1 Doc. 265 at 6, 7. Plaintiff filed supplemental pleadings in connection with his
2 request. Docs. 269, 270.
3 At the trial confirmation hearing on May 21, 2026, the court continued the trial to July 28,
4 2026, to allow additional time for plaintiff to prepare for trial.2 The court requested that defense
5 counsel respond to plaintiff’s claim that his documents had been tampered with during a cell
6 move on May 14, 2026.
7 Defendant filed a response to plaintiff’s request and lodged extensive video footage
8 documenting the handling and move of plaintiff’s belongings on May 14, 2026, addressing
9 plaintiff’s claim that prison authorities had tampered with his documents. Docs. 274, 275.
10 Plaintiff filed a reply and requests for administrative relief, documentation, sanctions, and
11 injunctive relief. Doc. 282.
12 Defendant states in her response:
13 Plaintiff was moved on May 14, 2026, as the direct result of a
disciplinary process that Plaintiff does not dispute. Two months
14 prior, Plaintiff violated Title 15, California Codes of Regulations
section 3005(a) by being overfamiliar with staff by using
15 inappropriate, lascivious language. A Rules Violation Report (RVR)
was issued. (See Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff pled guilty to disrespect and
16 was found guilty on May 4, 2026. As a consequence, Plaintiff was
placed on a “soft C-status,” requiring him to reside in Building 1.
17
* * *
18
The AVSS footage from May 14, 2026, directly contradicts
19 Plaintiff's claim that staff sabotaged his legal documents. (See
Exhibit 3.) Instead, the footage shows that prison officials acted
20 professionally and with care throughout the transfer. Rather than
confiscating or destroying any property, staff followed the policies,
21 cataloged Plaintiff’s belongings on an Inmate Property Inventory
form, and transported everything to his new cell using a cart. (See
22 Exhibit 4.) The video clearly shows one transparent storage box
containing documents and several plastic bags with paper, all of
23 which were moved intact. Inmate porters even assisted in organizing
Plaintiff’s property, including folding his sheets and blanket. No
24 property was confiscated and no property was depicted being left
behind or on the podium, as Plaintiff claimed at the trial confirmation
25
1 At the time of plaintiff’s filing, a jury trial was set for June 9, 2026. See Doc. 239.
26
27 2 The court subsequently continued the trial to August 11, 2026, at defendant’s request for good
cause shown; plaintiff did not oppose the continuance to August 11, 2026. See Docs. 274, 281,
28 285.
1 hearing.
2 On May 21, 2026 — one week after the move — prison staff came
to Plaintiff’s new cell in Building 1 and confirmed that Plaintiff had
3 his legal documents in his possession and photographed his cell at
the request of the Attorney General’s office. Those photographs
4 show Plaintiff’s storage box on the floor of his cell and yellow legal
binders on top of his bunk. (See Exhibit 5.)
5
Doc. 274 at 2-3.
6
Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
7
aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons
9
who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to
10
frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and
11
encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United
12
States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote and citations omitted).
13
“Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non-
14
party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff's ability to litigate his pending
15
action.” Hammler v. Haas, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48377, *3-4 (E.D. Cal., Mar. 22, 2019); see
16
also Mitchell v. Haviland, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109106, *5 (E.D. Cal., Aug. 18, 2015) (“Use of
17
the All Writs Act is appropriate in cases where prison officials, not named as defendants,
18
allegedly have taken action that impedes a prisoner’s ability to litigate his case”); Lopez v. Cook,
19
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52198, 2014 WL 1488518 (E.D. Cal., Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order
20
under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to provide Plaintiff, who was in the Segregated
21
Housing Unit for non-disciplinary reasons, with two contact visits with his counsel). However,
22
“injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly and only in the most critical and
23
exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v.
24
Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
25
The court has reviewed the video evidence and other documentation submitted in
26
connection with plaintiff’s request for relief under the All Writs Act. The evidence does not
27
support plaintiff’s claim that his records were tampered with. Plaintiff’s allegation of tampering
28
1 | is entirely unsupported. He has not shown that prison officials or staff at Mule Creek State Prison
2 | are currently impeding his ability to litigate this action. Based on the evidence submitted by
3 | defendant (including a declaration, exhibits, and AVSS footage, see Docs. 274-1, 275), □□□□□□□□□□□
4 | allegations are unsubstantiated. Injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used sparingly,
5 | and plaintiff has not met the requirements for the relief he seeks.
6 Additionally, plaintiff has now had more than two months since his cell transfer to
7 | organize his materials and prepare for trial. At the trial confirmation hearing, the court granted
8 | plaintiffs request for a continuance and continued the trial to July 28, 2026, based on his
9 | representation that he needed additional time to prepare for trial. See Doc. 266. The court
10 | subsequently continued the trial to August 11, 2026, at defendant’s request, after plaintiff
11 | confirmed that he had no objection to that further continuance. See Docs. 281, 285.
12 Plaintiffs additional requests for administrative relief, documentation, sanctions, and
13 | injunctive relief, see Doc. 282, consist of unsubstantiated allegations that fail to identify any
14 || cognizable entitlement to relief and that are unrelated to the deliberate medical indifference claim
15 | at issue in this case. Plaintiff's requests are denied.
16
17 | [TIS SO ORDERED. _
18 Dated: _ July 31, 2026 4h | |
19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28